white tail park v stroube

White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Jul 5, 2005 413 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. The district court erred when it dismissed plaintiff's First Amendment claim, challenging a Virginia law which requires a parent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp, for lack of standing. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plaintiff than AANR-East, which is surely one of the few organizations in Virginia, if not the only one, affected by the amendments to section 35.1-18, which were enacted following the opening of AANR-East's first juvenile camp.5. Const., art. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. ACLU-VA's Statement on Gov. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence, including Roche's affidavits, to establish that the injuries suffered by AANR-East, if any at all, are "fairly trace [able] to the challenged action of the defendant" instead of "the independent action of some third party not before the court," id. 04-2002. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Prior to the scheduled start of AANR-East's 2004 youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specifically to address youth nudist camps. Id. The parties, like the district court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing. AANR-East leased, the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend, visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with, other individuals and families who practice social nudism. Nudist parents send their teenage children to the camp in order for them to learn about the naturist lifestyle and to be among peers who also have come from nudist families. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support the conclusion that: (1) "the plaintiff suffered an injury in factan invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; (2) "there [is] a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of"; and (3) "it [is] likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." The camp agenda included traditional. This behavior is likely used to draw attention away from the vulnerable head to the break-away tail. Accordingly, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S. Ct. 596, 107 L. Ed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. VDH issued a summer camp permit to AANR-East, licensing it to operate a summer camp at White Tail Park from July 23, 2004 to July 31, 2004. "To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." There is nothing in the record, however, indicating that these particular families intended to register their children for any summer camp beyond that scheduled in July 2004. Closed on Sunday. Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. Accordingly, the case is no longer justiciable. Modeled after juvenile nudist summer camps operated annually in Arizona and Florida by other regional divisions of AANR, the 2003 AANR-East summer camp offered two programs: a Youth Camp for children 11 to 15 years old, and a Leadership Academy for children 15 to 18 years old. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. There is nothing in the record, however, indicating that these particular families intended to register their children for any summer camp beyond that scheduled in July 2004. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S. Ct. 1055, 137 L. Ed. In concluding that the constitutional standing requirements were not met, the district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail derived "their `organizational standing' from [the standing] of the [individual] anonymous plaintiffs." Coatis, Raccoons, and Ringtails. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. denied, 543 U.S. 1187, 125 S.Ct. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. AANR-East and White Tail bear the burden of establishing the three fundamental standing elements. We affirm on mootness grounds the dismissal of the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs, and we affirm the order dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest," id. 04-2002. A total of 32 campers attended the 2003 summer camp at White Tail Park. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. We turn, briefly, to White Tail. Read White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 04-2002. (Stroube is head of the Virginia State Health Commission, which oversees private camps in Virginia.) The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. Decision, July 5, 2005- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Opening Brief- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Appellant's Reply Brief- U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Complaint- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Right to Send Children to Nudist Summer Camp, Support these community organizations this Giving Tuesday, ACLUVA Statement on Decision in Anderson v. Clarke and Bowles, 10 Tips for Becoming an Effective Advocate. The camp also included an educational component designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through topics such as "Nudity and the Law," "Overcoming the Clothing Experience," "Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs," and "Nudism and Faith." J.A. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Commonwealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activities, a nudist camp for juveniles. According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. Roche also serves as president of White Tail, In view of this ruling, the district court concluded that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the anonymous plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to use pseudonyms, and plaintiffs' motion for a protective order were moot. The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Commonwealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activities, a nudist camp for juveniles. 1991). and B.P. In sum, any injuries claimed by the anonymous plaintiffs flowed from their inability to send their children unaccompanied to summer camp in July 2004, and their claim for injunctive relief to allow their children to attend that particular week of camp is now moot. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1997). (2005) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf) or read online for free. The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest. By focusing on the intrusiveness of the statute and the extent to which it impaired the ability of AANR-East to carry its message to summer camp attendees, the court was effectively making a merits determination. Roche also serves as president of White Tail. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 1982). Thus, "the scope of a court's authority under Rule 60(a) to make . For AANR-East to establish this element, it must adduce facts demonstrating that it suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest," id. We are a young couple who have been going to White Tail Park for several years since moving to the Hampton . Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Published. In June 2004, Robert Roche, president of AANR-East, applied for a permit to operate the youth nudist camp scheduled for late July 2004.1 Like all applicants for permits under section 35.1-18 at that time, Roche was required to sign and submit with the application an acknowledgment that Virginia law banned the operation of nudist camps for juveniles as defined by Virginia Code 35.1-18. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. 2005) (citations and quotations omitted). Whitetail Dr, Ivor, VA 23866 (757) 859-6123 Suggest an Edit. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. 56(e))). Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. The parties, like the district court, focused primarily on this particular element of standing. reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. J.A. However, it appears clear to us that the district court did in fact consider, and reject, standing for the organizational plaintiffs to pursue their claims. White-nosed Coati (Nasua narica) The coatimundi, or coati, is a member of the raccoon family found from Arizona to South America. 1. The City maintains that O'Connor cannot demonstrate the first of these three prongs. Id. The camp also included an educational component, designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through, topics such as "Nudity and the Law," "Overcoming the Clothing, Experience," "Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs," and "Nudism, and Faith." The camp is highly supervised and there is no indication that any sexual activity takes place or that children are physically or psychologically harmed in any way. The camp also included an educational component designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through topics such as "Nudity and the Law," "Overcoming the Clothing Experience," "Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs," and "Nudism and Faith." We have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. 2d 603 (1990). The district court concluded, in turn, that if the individual plaintiffs no longer satisfied the case or controversy requirement, then neither does White Tail or AANR-East because their organizational standing derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs. J.A. J.A. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. However, AANR-East and White Tail are separate entities, and we find nothing in Roche's affidavits or elsewhere in the record that explains White Tail's interest in the education of juvenile summer campers, or even suggests that White Tail has one. Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. and M.S., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert B. STROUBE, in his official capacity as Virginia State Health Commissioner, Defendant-Appellee. Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. 20-21. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 114. for the Northern District of West Virginia, Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opin-, ion. The email address cannot be subscribed. Checkers Family Restaurant - 9516 Windsor Blvd. 413 F.3d 451, Docket Number: Roche runs each organization, and both organizations share a connection to the practice of social nudism. According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. 9. The complaint alleges only that two of the plaintiff couples were unable to attend the summer camp with their children, as required by section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code, during the week of July 24 through July 31, 2004. J.A. One of the purposes of the camp, according to AANR-East, is to "educate nudist youth and inculcate them with the values and traditions that are unique to the culture and history of the American social nudist movement." J.A. U.S. These rulings are not at issue on appeal. 57. See Va.Code 35.1-18. 1917. Precedential, Citations: This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer, camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food, and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of, Va. Code 35.1-18. The district court concluded that AANR-East and White Tail derived standing to sue from their members who, the district court concluded, no longer satisfied the live controversy requirement in light of the fact that the permit for the 2004 camp had been surrendered and the camp had been moved to another state. ; D.H., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, I.P. The district court concluded, in turn, that if the individual plaintiffs no longer satisfied the case or controversy requirement, then "neither does White Tail or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. The complaint asserts two claims: (1) that section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code violates plaintiffs' right to privacy and to control the education and rearing of their children under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) that section 35.1-18 violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free association. "A justiciable case or controversy requires a `plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.'" AANR-East contends that the amended statute will reduce the size of the camp every year because not all would-be campers have parents or guardians who are available to register and attend a week of camp during the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 24 campers who would have otherwise attended camp by themselves in June 2004 were unable to do so because of their parents' inability or unwillingness to attend. III, 2, cl. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. white tail park v stroube white tail park v stroube. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, Wil-, liam E. Thro, State Solicitor General, Maureen Riley Matsen, Deputy, State Solicitor General, Courtney M. Malveaux, Associate State. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). White Tail Park, 413 F.3d at 460. 1. 57. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and, Frederick P. STAMP, Jr., United States District Judge. July 5th, 2005, Precedential Status: J.A. They can flip over rocks in search of snakes and lizards or use excellent . Id. Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. at 561, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted). We turn first to the question of mootness. Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. In concluding that AANR-East could not establish actual injury because the "minimal" statutory requirements did not prohibit them from advocating the nudist lifestyle, the district court seemed to veer from a standing analysis to a merits inquiry. 2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1992). Roche's affidavits clearly indicate that AANR-East designs the camps and conducts them; establishes camp policies; and selects camp staff who perform the actual teaching at camp. Having concluded that the claims of AANR-East and White Tail are not moot, we next consider whether these organizations have standing to raise them in federal court. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed. J.A. Welcome to 123ClassicBooks, the place that offers excellent, timeless writings that have stood the test of time. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more appropriate plaintiff than AANR-East, which is surely one of the few organizations in Virginia, if not the only one, affected by the amendments to section 35.1-18, which were enacted following the opening of AANR-East's first juvenile camp.5. J.A. Plaintiffs requested an order declaring section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. Contact us. 115. Id. With respect to AANR-East and White Tail, we cannot agree that the claims alleged in the complaint are moot. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. Filed: 2005-07-05 White Tail Park v. Stroube, 4th Cir. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). At the hearing, the Commissioner argued that the case had become moot because AANR-East surrendered its permit after failing to secure a preliminary injunction and then successfully moved the camp to another state. 2014) (listing cases). Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp "experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us." CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir.1991). J.A. However, in at least one panel decision, we have used the term "organizational standing" interchangeably with "associational standing." AANR-East has not identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further. 115. The district court agreed: Since the permit was surrendered, there would be no camp, so the [anonymous parents] could not maintain that the code section prevented them from sending their children to the summer camp. Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. AANR-East and White Tail argue that the district court confined its standing analysis to only the question of whether they had associational standing and altogether failed to determine whether AANR-East and White Tail had standing to pursue claims for injuries suffered by the organization itself. AANR-East contends that the statute impairs its ability to disseminate the values related to social nudism in a structured camp environment. Brief of Appellants at 15. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. (AANR-East), White Tail Park, Inc. (White Tail), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. AANR-East has not identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further. Judge Traxler wrote the opinion, in which Judge Duncan and, Rebecca Kim Glenberg, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBER-. ; J.S., on behalf of themselves and their minor children, T.J.S. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessful-we express no opinion on the merits here---AANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460 (4th Cir. A summer nudist camp for children ages 11 through 17 was conducted at White Tail Park in 2003. There are substantial common ties between AANR-East and White Tail. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. On August 10, 2004, the judge dismissed the case, holding that it was moot and that the plaintiffs do not have standing. ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B. Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp.

Amy Brenneman Eye Droop, Abbvie Manager Salary, Is There Any Checkpoints From California To Texas, Shenandoah River Boat Ramps, Colleges That Closed In The 1990s, Articles W